The Midwifery Model of Care: Structural Support for Diversity in Health Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current practice of midwifery in Ontario grew from a largely white, middle-class, educated, family-oriented women’s movement to a publicly-funded and regulated health profession between the early 1970s and the early 1990s. Access to midwifery has increased with funding and with growing numbers of midwives, as has the diversity of women accessing midwifery care. This paper arises from a larger project in which we interviewed midwives about their social change work, and in particular their thoughts on diversity. Our interest focuses on both the ways in which access to the profession by more diverse social groups can be supported and the ways in which respecting and honouring diversity can be further enhanced within the profession. Here we reflect on the three tenets of the midwifery model of care (informed choice, continuity of care and choice of birthplace) and how they have the potential to provide important structural support for engaging with and enhancing diversity within midwifery care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".